Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Madam Speaker: Bill 201, The Aboriginal Solidarity Day Act (Loi sur le jour de solidarité à l'égard des autochtones), on the proposed motion of the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), Bill 203, The Public Assets Protection Act (Loi sur la protection des biens publics), standing in the name of the honourable member for Gimli.
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, yes, I would like to speak on Bill 203, which was proposed by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), which is The Public Assets Protection Bill. In this bill the member for Thompson is aiming at one issue only and that is the Crown corporation of the Manitoba Telephone System. When he talks about The Public Assets Protection Act, all he is trying to do is trying to protect or make sure the province does not sell the Crown corporation. Well, I think in this case he is speaking only about one particular Crown corporation and that is the Manitoba Telephone System.
I would like to say, he talks in the bill that the question should be put to the voters. Well, you know, we were elected in April of 1995 with a clear mandate. We have a strong majority and I think in this case, Bill 67 would give the Manitoba Telephone System the opportunity to sell shares locally to the people of Manitoba. I think Bill 67 outlines what the Manitoba Telephone System is really doing, and why it is necessary for the Manitoba Telephone System to progress to do the things that they have to do to provide the services to Manitobans.
First of all, the original intent of a Crown corporation was to provide a service where there was no competition, where there was no private companies in order to do it. That is when the government had to come in to provide a service, and that is what the Manitoba Telephone System did. I believe it was 1909, or something like that, when it first started, but today that is not the case anymore. Today there is competition in the telecommunications business. Almost all of the business that the Manitoba Telephone System does, whether it be in the cellular business or in the NETCOM company, they are all being competed with by other companies. So it is a lot different than it used to be.
The Manitoba Telephone System over the years has been a fairly well-run company and has done fairly well. Even when you look at the annual reports of 1994, 1995, it has been a profitable venture. It has been run very well by the board of directors and by the chairman and by the minister. So I think, even having said all that, the company, MTS, has a large debt load of some $880 million, something of that nature; therefore, it has a difficult time competing with the other companies.
I think, in order for MTS to compete, that we are doing the right thing with Bill 67 by putting MTS up for sale to the people of Manitoba. It is going to give the people of Manitoba an opportunity to invest in their own telephone system, to buy shares and share in the profits. I think it is an excellent way of doing it. Anybody can buy shares in any of the oil companies, any of the car manufacturers; a lot of people that serve transportation services, CP Rail; even in Air Canada today, it is not a monopoly anymore. You can go buy shares in Air Canada or in many of the large companies that provide services to Manitobans and to Canadians.
No different than the Manitoba Telephone System will be doing after it has been privatized and after the shares are sold. They will be sold to Manitobans or to whoever wants to buy shares, but I believe that we should give Manitobans an opportunity first to purchase shares in this company. I think it will be a good investment; it will give the company an opportunity to grow and expand and to continue to provide the service that is so necessary and that Manitobans want.
Just on the technology side, I think this morning at the committee dealing with the annual reports to the Manitoba Telephone System, the chairman and the minister outlined the changes that have taken place and the improvements that the Manitoba Telephone System has made and how it operates. Technology has changed so much with, of course, the fact that the MTS Mobility, the cellular business, has expanded to such an extent and everyone today has a cellular phone, as an example. That is just the fact that the computer age has brought the use of MTS lines to such an extent, the Internet. There are so many things that are interconnected with the Manitoba Telephone System. You can buy burglar alarms, all kinds of alarms, fire sensors, whatever, that it would be hooked to your telephone system to protect your homes and property. I think there are so many things that have been just new in the past 10, 20 years--so many changes, technological changes in the way things are being done, such improvements to make our lives in Manitoba and in Canada so much better. I believe the things that they have done till now are great, and I am sure they will continue to do that.
When they are owned by shareholders, they will be responsible to a board of directors, and that board of directors, I am sure, will operate the company in the most profitable manner in trying both to provide a service to Canadians and Manitobans and also to provide a return on your investment to the shareholders. I think that is a much better way of operating than as a Crown corporation, and especially the fact that there is competition in so many different ways in the telephone system.
This morning when they talked about how MTS operates--
An Honourable Member: They operate okay.
Mr. Helwer: Yes, they sure do, and they provide great service to your constituency there, but they will provide better service and more things under privatization, under a private ownership. They will not have to spend--at the present time, the Manitoba Telephone System spends some 17 cents of every dollar of revenue that they take in on interest to the banks. Why should we pay the interest to the banks? Let us let the shareholders own the company and pay the return on investment to the shareholders. Give them a return on their investment. Let Manitobans own the company. At the present time we are paying that interest to banks down east. We are not helping Manitobans by doing that. That is of no asset to anybody, not that I have anything against the banks. They have certainly made a contribution to this country as well.
MTS has been a very well-run company and, over the past number of years, especially since 1988, since this government came to power, they have made MTS be accountable. We have an excellent board of directors and we have excellent people running the company. They have made some money, you know, 14-15-16 million dollars or whatever. It is not big money, but it has shown a profit. That has been run very well.
* (1640)
Another thing on the technology side that MTS has done is the fibre optic cable that has been installed in all of Manitoba. I think it is one of the first provinces, one of the first companies--MTS really took the initiative to provide this kind of service, do away with party lines and provide the service with the fibre optic cable. Fibre optic cable can send many signals down the same line at the same time, thereby providing all the rural people in Manitoba the benefits of this. It is just immense, the many things that you can do. It is putting our farmers, our rural people in the same position as the people in the city of Winnipeg were in, whereby they had access to the different things, the private lines so that you could put in the Internet, they could have fax machines, they could do all these things with their telephone system cable. Today that is all available in all of rural Manitoba. It is just a tremendous thing, a tremendous advance in technology.
These services being available for the rural communities have been a great boon, and they can see the growth that has expanded in the rural areas. This kind of technology has certainly helped businesses operate in rural Manitoba, give them more lines, some toll-free service into communities surrounding Winnipeg and our larger calling area. There have been a lot of improvements in the Manitoba Telephone System in the way they operate.
I certainly support Bill 67 and the fact that it will make MTS a company that is going to be run by shareholders, it is going to be run by a board of directors, but it will be more accountable and will continue to provide service and the technology and the improvements that we want to see in Manitoba.
With that, Madam Speaker, I do not think that Bill 203 would do us justice. As a matter of fact, I am sure it will not be passed, because we want to pass Bill 67, which would give the Manitoba Telephone System an opportunity to be privatized and to sell shares.
I certainly will be one that will line up and try to buy shares in this new company.
An Honourable Member: You can afford it, Ed.
Mr. Helwer: Yes, I will be--you too. Good for you. Great. Glad to see some of the opposition members even want to buy shares in a company like MTS.
An Honourable Member: Good. That must mean they are in favour of it.
Mr. Helwer: That is right. They must really agree that MTS is a good company and that it will provide the services necessary and will operate well under private ownership or under a shareholder basis.
With that I will conclude my comments, but I am sure I cannot support Bill 203.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, I am very appreciative of the opportunity to speak on this particular bill, because it is one that I think underlines a very important set of decisions that this Legislature is making in this session with respect to the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System, the privatization of Manitoba Telephone System, creating the opportunity for Manitobans to buy directly the Manitoba Telephone system. Although that particular issue is dealt with directly by another piece of legislation, these two particular bills are very much intertwined in the principles of that debate.
Yesterday, Madam Speaker, I sat in this Chamber and heard the--I believe it was yesterday--speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) dealing with the government bill allowing for the privatization of the Manitoba Telephone System. I listened to his speech, and he put forward some very, I think, compelling and strong arguments as to why governments in a province like Manitoba should have been in the business providing telephones. Many of the points that he raised were supported by members of this side. The member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach), I know, made comment about bringing a better line service into his constituency some years ago when he was first elected as an MLA and that service happening because the trustees of the Crown corporation, as represented by us in this Legislature, were able to convince the board, put pressure on the board, to look at something they otherwise would not have provided.
However, Madam Speaker, no matter how compelling those arguments are, there is one observation that I make, one point that struck me very strongly in listening to the Leader of the Opposition. That is, like so many things we have to deal with in our society today, so many issues of public policy that this Legislature, that the cabinet, has to deal with in moving our province forward, facts of life, I guess, have overtaken our perception of the way things are done.
Let me elaborate a little bit for a moment, Madam Speaker. The world that the Leader of the Opposition described is a world that just a few years ago, when we were embarking under the leadership of the member for Springfield--at that time the member for Virden constituency and the minister responsible for the telephone system--the process that we embarked on in revitalizing the capital plan of MTS, incurring, guaranteed by the public of Manitoba, some $800 million, which has a cost to the taxpayers because it adds to our borrowing and our ability to raise money and the cost of money to this province. When the minister embarked, with cabinet's full concurrence, this caucus's full concurrence, on that venture, at that time, I remember the sense of technology starting to raise questions with us, is this the right decision? Are we making one that we will regret in all too short of time? I remember one of my colleagues, the then member for Pembina, raising that point about the new technology. Were we successful? I think we were, but that world in which we made that decision in 1988-89--and I look to the minister for his concurrence--that world is quickly moving out from under us. As we speak, it is moving out from under us.
The Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues in the New Democratic Party, the world that he described in his speech is a world that in a few short years is not even going to be there. It is disappearing. The technology to make it disappear has happened already. It exists already. When you talk about telephone service in northern Manitoba, in rural Manitoba, in any isolated region with small density of population, the great difficulty of bringing service there. Certainly, 70, 80 years ago when we started the telephone system, it was virtually impossible, it was unaffordable, to bring that service in. By the pooling of the province we made it affordable over a period of time. My grandparents did not get a telephone in St. Andrews, which is just outside the city, until the '40s. The service was not there or was not affordable to them. So we have seen that growth, we have pooled, but technology has made that difficulty of density and distance not a factor today.
You know, when you look to where the technology has taken us--and I do not profess to be an expert in the detail, but in the generality companies like Motorola, which are now in the process of planning for the launching of a constellation of cellular-phone satellites--I think it is some 800 in the constellation. I may be wrong on that number. That service will provide cellular telephone service to literally anywhere on the globe. Literally a trapper in northern Manitoba, within the foreseeable future, will be able to call home from anywhere on their trapline with the right equipment.
Will that equipment be immediately affordable? Well, like all things, it starts high, but it does come down. I remember, as a young MLA being elected to this House, buying a cellular phone and the cost being some $1,800 for a cellular phone. Today you can purchase a cellular phone for under $100; in fact, you can get one for free. So the cost of those services is coming down.
Technology has made the wire system, has made the physical equipment and plant that had to service distance, that was dependent on density, and all those factors that really underlie, underpin the premise of the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Doer) speech--the reality of it is that technology is removing those barriers, the barriers that ultimately and logically justified public ownership of this utility for most of this century.
Madam Speaker, I am sure that the people of Manitoba do not expect this Legislature or its government to tie itself to issues and decisions or Crown corporations solely on the basis of the fact that that is the way we have always done it. When the logic behind the reason for some action that we take as a Legislature disappears or changes or erodes or evolves, it is our duty as the trustees of the taxpayers of this province to adjust, to accommodate that.
* (1650)
What we see from the New Democrats, time and time again, is this view of the world that is not leading edge, that is not looking to the future, but is very much based on realities that are quickly shifting away from us and, in many cases, are gone. Whether that be in agriculture or telephones or in education or in a host of other areas, we see them sort of in this time warp about the way the world looked--and, granted, change takes time. It takes time to bring the public to see the change that is happening, to appreciate it, but we on this side of the House, as the trustees of the taxpayers, are duty bound, I believe, to ensure that we are trying to keep as on top as possible on those issues.
The members of the opposition do not share that same responsibility, and, in fairness, they have an obligation to test us, to question us, to challenge us to ensure that our assumptions are right. But I think, Madam Speaker, if you look anywhere in the world in telecommunications, you see this tremendous shift, technologies that make physical plant on the ground and, hence, the cost of delivering the service or the cost of low density--quickly it is making those not all that relevant to the cost of telecommunications or the ability to provide it, and that has changed dramatically. I did not hear the comments of the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) but--so here we have our utility in Manitoba which is at a crossroads. Do they move forward into the future or do they stay glued to a past? Well, ultimately our utility has to look to the future. We have to ensure that the investment that Manitobans have in this utility is secure, and if this utility is not able to function to its greatest capability in a quickly growing competitive marketplace--and the minister has pointed out time and time again that now 70 percent of the business of this utility is carried on in a competitive marketplace--if this company does not have the tools and the ability and the debt load that it can carry that allows it to be competitive, it will fail. Its value will diminish, and the value of the assets of the taxpayers of Manitoba that we have today will be reduced.
Members opposite, if we do not do this, will not stand here in five years when the company is only worth a fraction of what it is today because it has not been able to function, and say, well, we are sorry about the loss. No, they will blame it on something else.
The day where Manitoba Telephone System existed in a monopoly position where it did not have to worry about competition, those days are gone. So what we have now is we have a publicly owned company with all the constraints of public ownership with a large debt. Besides the debt, I would say, just the inability of any Crown corporation to have a timely and effective decision-making process when they have so many people to answer to makes it difficult for them to compete.
Madam Speaker, I think a very important sign in whether or not this is the right decision is to ask people in the company, employees in the company who have an understanding of and have studied and looked at the role of their company, who work every day and compete. In my constituency this, by the way, has not been a huge issue. I say to members opposite, I have had about a half-dozen or so, maybe eight or nine of my constituents, people whom I respect who work for MTS who have come to see me. They have had one issue, and that has been concern about the security of their pension. My colleagues have had that. I think the minister has recognized it and we have been working with that, because I do not think there really was a problem but it is a matter of making sure that there is no perception of a problem, that things are done right and properly. Let us remember, a few years ago when we came to power, their pension was not secure at all, just to put it in a little perspective.
That is a legitimate concern, but that is the concern that they bring to us, right? They are not coming and saying, do not. In fact, almost every one of them has told me they are buying shares. One gentleman who figured that, as he looks at telecommunication, his particular role is likely one that will not be there five or six or seven years from now, he is already thinking in his own mind that he is getting ready to get into that business if that role ends at MTS. The word I get from them is, get on with it because we think we can compete. We have a good customer base. We service our customers. We think we will do well. Give us the chance to compete.
I know my time is running short, Madam Speaker. I have two minutes. But the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) made a point. He talked about Faneuil, and I would love to have a whole hour to talk about Faneuil because one of the things we have learned is we managed to hook up through a lot of good negotiations with one of the best companies in that business in North America. The work that they are doing to bring business to Manitoba has been successful. How many employees now with Faneuil? I look to the minister. How many?
An Honourable Member: Well over 300.
Mr. Praznik: Well over 300 additional people working at pretty good jobs. They have been a success, but the minister says, what about Manitobans? Are there not Manitoba entrepreneurs? There are. The Manitoba Telephone System, as I have come to appreciate, is full of entrepreneurs like that, and the people from Manitoba who are working with companies like Faneuil and who are developing call centres and who are learning this business are doing very well and are very competitive in North America and the Manitoba Telephone System in this new world, we believe, I believe personally, will be highly competitive.
So, when you come to this bill, this is more of a dinosaur protection bill than anything else, because every government, as times change, governments have to have the ability to come back to first principles, which are, if we are going to be involved in an enterprise, what is the reason? And there may be enterprises that government should be in, in the future. We would not be afraid to get into them, but there are businesses we should not be, and we need to be out of them. McKenzie Seeds comes to mind. A number of other companies, the logging companies were in, but that will change from time to time and members opposite should never be afraid. They have a right to question. I do not doubt that at all, and I am glad they do. It makes for good debate, and it makes for good public discussion, but let us never tie ourselves that we do not have the flexibility to make the right decisions for the people of our province. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, I would like to put a few comments on the record in respect of this act as well, the act entitled The Public Assets Protection Act.
As my comments will indicate, in fact, this act is the very opposite of a public assets protection act. This is a public assets destruction act, and I will go into some of the reasons why I say that.
Let us take a look at, first of all, the definitions. In Section 1 it says, in this act, "'Crown entity' means" and not surprisingly the Manitoba Telephone System is on the top of the list. In addition there is Manitoba Hydro, Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, Liquor Control Commission, Manitoba Development Corporation, Manitoba Lotteries Corporation, Manitoba Trading Corporation and "any other Crown entity designated in the regulations" so clearly it is intended to get every single Crown entity that one could possibly think of. But, again, as I said, it is not surprising that Manitoba Telephone System is at the top of this list because of the, in fact, opposition of the members from the New Democratic Party to the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System in the way that has been proposed by the government of Manitoba.
The interesting section is the government in Section 2. "The government shall not"--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable minister that he is not to refer to section and clauses of the bill but speak to the principles of the bill contained in those specific sections.
* (1700)
Mr. Toews: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The principle here is not that this bill says we have to have a referendum when we want to look at selling a particular entity as defined by the act, but in fact, not only does it say the entity but any part of the entity and that is not even defined. What does it mean, any part of the entity?
Every time the Liquor Control Commission wants to sell a bottle of its assets, do we have to have a referendum here in the province of Manitoba? I am being facetious in that respect, and I hope that the courts and the members opposite would come to some resolution, a reasonable resolution of how to interpret this if this in fact would ever be put into law. But here we have saying, any part of the asset, and this, I would submit, Madam Speaker, creates tremendous difficulty.
The way I would want to illustrate these difficulties is in fact the issue of competition. Competition is the fact. It is the order of the day. It permeates our society, and if we think that we can avoid it by setting up walls around our province, the truth of the matter is that business will pass us by, jobs will pass us by, tax-paying corporations or their employees will pass us by. Competition, if we are to remain a viable province, an aggressive province, a province that provides for its people in terms of social services--in that respect I include child care, education, family services, these essential services that government is the best to be there to protect--if we are to preserve and protect these, clearly, we have to attract business, and we have to remain competitive. Competition requires quick action.
As members opposite might know, I spent four years in the private sector, and that in fact taught me a lot of things that I had not seen before. My entire career was in the public service. I had been a member of the Attorney General's department for many, many years in very many roles, and it was a good experience.
An Honourable Member: Union member.
Mr. Toews: I was a union member, and I was the vice-president of our union, I might add. It taught me a lot of lessons, the public service. I will still speak in favour of unions because I believe that there is a role for unions, but that is another issue. What we will see, and what I learned from Great-West Life, is that there is another side to the story. It is not government that creates wealth. Government can be a good steward of wealth. Government can create opportunities, but ultimately we have to rely on the private sector to bring the business here. I remember, when I first went to Great-West Life in 1991, before I went to Great-West Life, I had a conversation with an old friend who worked for Great-West Life, and I said, well, should I give up my civil service career, my public service career and come over to Great-West Life? He said, come over here; it is the closest thing that you will have to cradle-to-grave protection other than the government. I thought that was a curious comment.
I went there, and suddenly I was caught up in one of the largest corporate re-organizations that Great-West Life had seen in its 100 years of existence, because not even the employees there who had been there for a long time realized that the world was changing very, very rapidly around them, Madam Speaker. It was changing, and the ultimate decisions that were made resulted in 200 people being laid off in Great-West Life in 1992. Let me tell you, that is a very difficult time. When any person loses their job, it is a difficult time, not just for that person, but for the entire family, for the community, for the tax base, for everyone. It is a difficult time. But one person told me, in that corporation, do not look at this as losing 200 jobs. Look at this as saving 1,800 other jobs, because when the banks come in, and when you are in debt to them and you do not have any choices, the banks will make the decisions for you, so the point being, Madam Speaker, that what you have to do--[interjection] The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) says, oh, the top 20 companies do not have to worry about the banks. That is exactly what Confederation Life in Toronto said: We have been around for 125 years; we have multimillion dollars in assets. Within a year, that company was gone, and where were their employees? Out on the street. Do you know why? Because that corporation did not respond to competition. So where was the member opposite? Where was the NDP government in Ontario at that time when these people were out on the street?
The corporation that is responsible to its employees is a corporation that responds quickly to the marketplace to protect not just its assets, but to protect its employees, to protect the community that it lives in. Members opposite might one day take a look at the private sector and just spend some time there and see that there are caring people there. There are people who care about their community, and they make these decisions in the best interests of the community, not for some obscure shareholder somewhere. They care about the community. Maybe if they had some experience in the private sector, they would learn that as well.
So, in respect of Great-West Life, this was an issue not just of 200 layoffs, but saving 1,800 jobs and, you know, Madam Speaker, they did that. They stayed here in Manitoba. They saved 1,800 jobs, and today they are expanding more and more because of, I believe, the business climate here in this province. Do you know what that means when they expand here? They create more jobs. They create a bigger tax base, and we pay for the social services that we are the stewards of.
That is what it means. Competition requires certain action, and it is the fools who stay buried with their heads in the sand. It is like Confederation Life that ran massive bills, massive debt, and said, oh, we do not have to worry; we have been around for a hundred and a quarter years. Within 12 months that huge, huge corporation was gone, and the vultures were picking up after the corporation had gone, and where were the employees? The employees were on the street, and the NDP government in Ontario, with all its platitudes, could do nothing.
Well, Madam Speaker, that is not what this government is about. We care about people. We care about these corporations because they provide that lifeblood. They create that wealth so that we can pay for our social services. That is what we are trying to do.
Now, what are they doing here with this particular bill, getting right back to this bill? What are they doing? They are saying, well, what we want to do is have a referendum in respect of the sale of any part--any part--of the corporation, not just the whole corporation, but any part of it, whatever that means. So we have some entrepreneuring young man or woman inside, let us say, MTS, and they see an opportunity. They see an opportunity for a joint partnership with another corporation, but that would involve an exchange of shares, in fact, a sale. They say, let us get together with another corporation to move very, very quickly and capitalize on this particular business proposition.
* (1710)
Well, you know what the problem is right now. The young or old person who is employed by MTS will have to go to his or her manager. That manager will then have to take it up with the higher manager, then to the CEO. Then it goes to the board. The board kicks the idea around a bit. Then it goes to the minister. Then the minister, if he or she is convinced, goes to cabinet. Then cabinet discusses the idea. Then, if legislation is required, we have another six months to a year.
So, for a simple business deal involving an exchange of shares, we wait a year, 18 months, two years, and this is what they are saying. Not only is the present system so hamstrung that any opportunities are eaten up by the marketplace long before that entrepreneuring young person within the corporation ever has an opportunity to get that idea as far as the board, that decision has already been made by the marketplace. That idea is long gone.
Now what they are doing is adding another layer--another layer--to the already huge problem that we have, and that is to say, well, it is not good enough that cabinet decides it. It is not good enough that we pass a bill in the House, as we are doing now. What we want to do now is have a referendum on the sale of a part of a corporation. It could be a minor part, it could be a few shares, it could be worth a $100,000, and now we have the entire province of Manitoba voting on this business proposal. This is lunacy at its best or, should I say, at its worst. How any reasonable thinking person could even do or suggest this kind of thing.
You know, they simply want to say, we want to preserve everything, we want to keep everything. That reminds me of the story about the union negotiator who came up back to his membership and that union negotiator said, I have got some great news. You know, you were making $20 an hour before, you are now making $25 an hour. The bad news is, the company has left and you do not have a job. That is the reality. That is what our friends across the way want to do.
I want to make it very clear on the record that I am not against Crown corporations. I favour Crown corporations, I favour public ownership, but I do not favour them because they are Crown corps or because it is publicly owned. That is too simplistic. You look at the purpose. What purpose is it serving? Is it still serving the best interests of the people of Manitoba? That is the basis you make these decisions on. As the Minister for Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik) has said, the time of a monopoly in MTS is over. Everyone in the world has recognized that. There are huge turnovers in terms of movement from publicly owned corporations to privately owned corporations for many of the same reasons that private corporations are constantly responding to the demands of the marketplace.
One of the reasons why Confederation Life of Ontario is no longer here is because, like our friends across the way, they had their heads buried in the sand and they said, we have been around for 125 years, nothing can happen to us. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Madam Speaker, I, too, am happy to be able to stand and address the concerns of the bill that was presented from the other side. I think that it really has to be given serious thought in terms of where they are coming from, because I think that the member who is proposing this is certainly out of touch in terms of what the real world is offering today. In the communication systems that we have today, and I look back in my short years in terms of business when I first started as a business person, I relied on the communications that were available to us at that time. I made good use of them because I felt that, in order to be competitive in this world, you had to take advantage of everything that was available to you. If you did not, you were not in business for very long.
I guess it is a lesson that maybe the honourable members across the way have yet to learn, but I think that it is something that--you know, when I sit and listen to the members in this House across the way, and I am going to be very brief on this because I do not think that I am going to convince them or change their ways, because the number of years that I have been in this Legislature, it is something that I am amazed that people in today's society can even think the way they do and still live in the province of Manitoba. This is a bill that is going to tie the hands of everybody in MTS. Instead of giving an opportunity which we as a government are attempting to provide with Bill 67, the members across the way have put, in so few years, MTS in a position that they cannot compete with the overriding debt that they are having to contend with--$878 million in debt which MTS has to deal with.
Anybody who has been in business today knows that you cannot work and survive and pay interest at the extent that a lot of companies are out there doing. That is why we are seeing companies in the business world today merging together. They are coming together to strengthen their positions, only because of the fact that they cannot survive; they have to remain competitive. So what we are trying to do on this side of the House is to try to give MTS a level playing field that they can compete.
This is a global market. When I started in business, my market was within the city of Winnipeg or the province of Manitoba, but my centre of influence was probably just within the confines of the boundaries of the constituency that I now represent in this Legislature. That was my centre of influence. Today, some 20 years later and even more recent than that, it has come to expand well beyond that. I am doing business with people and contacts with people who are in Calgary or St. John's or wherever that might be.
An Honourable Member: St. Louis?
Mr. McAlpine: The member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) says, St. Louis. Yes, I will do business with anybody in the world. The globe is my market.
Now, Madam Speaker, if we are going to impose legislation on business--I mean, today it is hard enough in competing with the competition and the challenges that are out there today--as the members across the way are proposing referendums in terms of selling off any portion of a company, that company is not going to be here to be able to deal with that referendum, I dare say, there is not going to be anything to sell. How can you pile up the amount of debt that MTS has been able to build over a number of years? That debt has occurred over possibly the last 10,12 years; it has not been the life of the corporation.
Granted, yes, that service back in the years when the first telephones were brought into Manitoba and the monopoly was established, it had a purpose, but we are living in today's communication and today's competition and we have to address that. We have to realize that, because if we do not realize it, we are all going to be tied with the debt. That is the only thing that we own in this province as far as MTS is concerned, is the debt. There is no revenue there. Furthermore, we are going to have to go and incur a further expense of some $600 million in order to stay pace with what is needed in order to stay competitive.
* (1720)
Now, to me, I think the reasonable thing to do, as Bill 67 is offering, is to allow people of Manitoba to take ownership of that. How can you ask people to work in a company or to address the concerns and be competitive if they are not prepared to take ownership of that particular facility?
Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we look at the aspects of what MTS is prepared to offer and give them the opportunity to be successful and not to place barriers, which we have been doing as a government by the mere fact that we have been controlling their management over the past number of years. That may have worked many years ago, but it is not working today. When decisions have to be made, they have to be made now in order to remain competitive in a competitive world, and the world is our market. I have businesses in the communication business in Sturgeon Creek, that most of their business is in Asia or South America. Now, if they were not allowed to be competitive and have access to the communication and the technology that is available to them, they could not compete.
So I know that I have other colleagues who want to speak to this, and I guess I am going to sever my remarks here at this point because I am not going to achieve anything in terms of trying to convince the other members that this is a ridiculous proposal that they are offering here and just say to the members on this side that we should, instead of supporting what they are offering, look to Bill 67 and try to do what we can in the interest of MTS and all Manitobans. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital): I am pleased to rise and put a few words on record. I have to say, I am appalled by this bill, appalled but not surprised, and not surprised because I think this is one more example of how the opposition just wishes everything to remain exactly the same.
That is human nature. All of us have a problem, I think, trying to cope with change, but we on this side, as has so often been said, are the ones that are in government, and we do not have the luxury of pretending that we can just do whatever we want to do. We are in government, and we have to remember that we are dealing with the real world.
It is very difficult to change, and I hear some comments from the other side. We have to recognize that MTS was created in a time when it had a monopoly. The world has changed in the last 90 years. We are no longer operating in a monopoly situation. We have to adapt. The status quo is no longer a viable option.
One of the members talked about the debt that MTS has. We have to remember that we have to protect the taxpayers. The debt, I do not think any member that has spoken yet today, is one of the worst of the tel companies here in Canada. Are the members opposite saying that we have to be putting the taxpayers' dollars at risk? We have to make changes. We have to remember that we are living in a world where the changes in technology are moving so quickly. I think the figure that has been quoted, there is more than $500 million will have to be put into MTS to just maintain its competition.
I see that my time is running out, but, again, I just want to say that government has to be responsible. Crown corporations, we must remember to ask, as the member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews) said, is it still serving the purpose for which that Crown corporation was first enacted? We simply have to remember that we have to also move with the times. Seventy percent of MTS' operations are now open to competition. We do not have the luxury of being in a monopoly situation anymore. We do not have the luxury of pretending the world has not changed. We do not have the luxury of pretending that competition has not entered the whole--
Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I do not have more time, so I move, seconded by the member--oh, you want to speak? Okay. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for River Heights (Ms. Radcliffe), that debate now be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), Bill 205, The Dutch Elm Disease Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la thyllose parasitaire de l'orme), standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Madam Speaker: Bill 202, The Home Care Protection and Consequential Amendments Act.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe), that Bill 300, The Salvation Army Catherine Booth Bible College Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le Collège biblique Catherine Booth de l'Armée du Salut, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Laurendeau: Madam Speaker, I believe if you ask the House you might find a willingness to call it 5:30.
Madam Speaker: Is there a will of the House to call it 5:30? Agreed? [agreed]
The hour being 5:30 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.